Content Validity of the Hemophilia Device Handling and Preference Assessment Questionnaire - A Cognitive Debrief Study in Patients with Hemophilia and Their Caregivers.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Patient preference and adherence Pub Date : 2025-09-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PPA.S529134
Niklas Kahr Rasmussen, Sanket Shah, Jui-Hua Tsai, Kelly P McCarrier, Emily A Hildebrand, Maya Gonczi, Gitte Ter-Borch, Birgitte Berg, Jesper Skov Neergaard
{"title":"Content Validity of the Hemophilia Device Handling and Preference Assessment Questionnaire - A Cognitive Debrief Study in Patients with Hemophilia and Their Caregivers.","authors":"Niklas Kahr Rasmussen, Sanket Shah, Jui-Hua Tsai, Kelly P McCarrier, Emily A Hildebrand, Maya Gonczi, Gitte Ter-Borch, Birgitte Berg, Jesper Skov Neergaard","doi":"10.2147/PPA.S529134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As new treatment options using different modes of administration become available for patients with hemophilia, it is important to assess how patients and caregivers perceive the use of different injection systems.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate patient comprehension, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the <i>Hemophilia Device Handling and Preference Assessment</i> (HDHPA) instrument among the hemophilia population. Specifically, cognitive interviews were to be conducted to establish evidence of the content validity for the instrument's use in a handling and preference study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional interview study included participants randomly selected from a pen-injector handling and preference study in the USA who had self-administered a ten-item HDHPA questionnaire. Subsequently, semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted examining HDHPA instrument instructions, items, and response options.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study sample consisted of 20 participants (50% adult patients, 25% adolescents, and 25% caregivers; 75% male). Most participants (89-100%) demonstrated comprehension of the instructions given. Nearly all participants (94-100%) demonstrated clear comprehension of the ten HDHPA items. All 20 participants stated that the questionnaire was relevant and comprehensive in assessing the pen-injector and comparing it to their current device.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study showed that the HDHPA items are comprehensible, relevant, and comprehensive, thereby confirming the content validity of this instrument.</p>","PeriodicalId":19972,"journal":{"name":"Patient preference and adherence","volume":"19 ","pages":"2807-2816"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12433217/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient preference and adherence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S529134","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: As new treatment options using different modes of administration become available for patients with hemophilia, it is important to assess how patients and caregivers perceive the use of different injection systems.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate patient comprehension, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the Hemophilia Device Handling and Preference Assessment (HDHPA) instrument among the hemophilia population. Specifically, cognitive interviews were to be conducted to establish evidence of the content validity for the instrument's use in a handling and preference study.

Methods: This cross-sectional interview study included participants randomly selected from a pen-injector handling and preference study in the USA who had self-administered a ten-item HDHPA questionnaire. Subsequently, semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted examining HDHPA instrument instructions, items, and response options.

Results: The study sample consisted of 20 participants (50% adult patients, 25% adolescents, and 25% caregivers; 75% male). Most participants (89-100%) demonstrated comprehension of the instructions given. Nearly all participants (94-100%) demonstrated clear comprehension of the ten HDHPA items. All 20 participants stated that the questionnaire was relevant and comprehensive in assessing the pen-injector and comparing it to their current device.

Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the HDHPA items are comprehensible, relevant, and comprehensive, thereby confirming the content validity of this instrument.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

血友病器械处理和偏好评估问卷的内容效度-血友病患者及其护理人员的认知汇报研究。
随着使用不同给药模式的新治疗方案可用于血友病患者,评估患者和护理人员如何看待使用不同注射系统是很重要的。目的:本研究旨在评估血友病患者对血友病器械处理和偏好评估(HDHPA)仪器的理解、相关性和全面性。具体地说,认知访谈是为了在处理和偏好研究中建立工具使用的内容效度证据而进行的。方法:本横断面访谈研究包括从美国笔式注射器处理和偏好研究中随机选择的参与者,他们自行填写了一份十项HDHPA问卷。随后,进行半结构化认知访谈,检查HDHPA工具说明、项目和反应选项。结果:研究样本包括20名参与者(50%为成年患者,25%为青少年,25%为看护人,75%为男性)。大多数参与者(89-100%)表现出对所给出的说明的理解。几乎所有的参与者(94-100%)对HDHPA的10个项目都有清晰的理解。所有20名参与者都表示,调查问卷在评估笔式注射器并将其与他们目前的设备进行比较方面是相关和全面的。结论:本研究结果显示,HDHPA项目具有可理解性、相关性和全面性,从而证实了该工具的内容效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Patient preference and adherence
Patient preference and adherence MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
354
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Patient Preference and Adherence is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic continuum. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research, modeling and clinical studies across all therapeutic areas. Patient satisfaction, acceptability, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new therapeutic modalities and compounds to optimize clinical outcomes for existing disease states are major areas of interest for the journal. As of 1st April 2019, Patient Preference and Adherence will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信